ghl_contact_get_note

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the behavior is well-defined. The description adds OAuth scopes and endpoint details, which are useful but not critical beyond annotations. No contradiction found.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise, with only the title and technical details. It is front-loaded with 'Get Note'. However, including the full endpoint and version header may be extraneous for an AI agent's decision-making, slightly reducing efficiency.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple GET tool with rich annotations, the description is adequate but lacks mention of return value or behavior. The output schema is absent, so the agent does not know what the tool returns. Given the simplicity and annotations, a score of 3 is fair.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers both parameters (id, contactId) with examples and descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any further semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Get Note' which clearly indicates retrieving a specific note. It includes the endpoint, making the action explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ghl_contact_get_all_notes or ghl_contact_get_by_id, which could confuse an agent about which tool to use for a single note vs list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it. It only provides technical endpoint and OAuth scope information, not usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.